Filterless observation

[The Lapwing]

Just out of curiosity, does anyone go without the use of any filters for visual observation? 

[grjsk]

When ever I am primarily observing stars (single, double/multiple or open clusters). 

[John]

Whenever I can, I prefer not to use filters.

I do use O-III filters on receptive nebulae, occasionally UHC filters and of course a good solar filter (Herschel Wedge).

I have recently been trying different filters to observe Venus but with no consistent and clear cut advantage, so far.

 

 

[Stu]

24 minutes ago, The Lapwing said:

Just out of curiosity, does anyone go without the use of any filters for visual observation? 

More often than not I observe without filters. Like John I use an OIII or UHC for suitable targets like the Veil, NAN or Planetary Nebulae for example. I tend not to use anything when observing planets or the Moon or double stars.

[bosun21]

Like others I also very seldom use filters when observing. I will use an Astronomik UHC filter for some targets like emission nebulae and a OIII on suitable targets. I tried LP and contrast booster filters along the way but much prefer just an unfiltered view.

[Knighty2112]

Yep, mostly observe as much as I can without filters visually.

[cajen2]

I hardly ever use my filters. Jupiter, Saturn and Mars are fractionally improved by my Baader Contrast Booster, but the difference is so small that I don't often bother.

[Mr Spock]

Nothing on the moon, Jupiter and Saturn. I use a variable polariser with an 80A for Venus as it dims the planet enough to see the cloud detail.

[Louis D]

As others have said, I use nebula filters for some nebula observing.  I've tried various filters on Jupiter and Mars with marginal success.  Of course I use a solar filter or wedge with the sun.  I tried some vintage color line filters for solar, but didn't notice much improvement.

All of the above work with any scope.  However, for my fast achromats, I have been extensively trying out various combinations of yellow/long-pass/minus-violet and cyan/short-pass/blue-green filters on Venus and the moon to block unfocused violet-blue and red light to vastly sharpen the image at higher powers.  You end up with a pale lime-green color cast.  I've also tried various light green filters which achieve similar results over a narrower passband and lower transmission.

[glafnazur]

I don't generally use filters for visual, although I did try an astronomik uhc filter on the Orion Nebula this winter and it gave me my best ever view. I've got an oiii filter but not had chance to try it our yet.

[Guest]

On nebula it is either a narrowband or OIII.  On the moon i will use a variable polarized filter just to cut down the light a bit, the same can be said for Jupiter and Venus.  When i make my attenpt at the horsehead next fall i will be using a H Beta.  Under my skies even the 16 will need all the help it can get 

[Franklin]

Accessories for scopes can become an obsession and telescope manufacturers don't help! They'll happily produce and sell filters for just about every conceivable observing situation yet the whole point of a telescope is to gather light, to capture faint light. So why put more glass in the way to absorb the light you've captured?

A few targets, noted above, emit light at specific wavelengths and because of this, filtering out the unwanted light can improve contrast (OIII/UHC). Solar filters are obviously mandatory and an ND or Polarizing filter can help on brighter solar system objects.

I try not to use filters and recently I've even been hoisting my scopes higher up, so I can view straight through without a diagonal. This way I'm seeing the full potential of my optics, just eyepiece and objective.

Filters will always be popular, especially with beginners.

[The Lapwing]

Interesting, not just me then. I rarely if ever use them. Some targets, Orion, Ring, Dumbbell look better without them in my opinion. I think the last time I used one was last summer when I had a quick look at the Veil.

That said I am considering a TV Nebustar, I was interested to see how the reduction of red effects things.

Edited June 10, 2023 by The Lapwing
Shocking grammar

[rwilkey]

I have always preferred the use of Moon filters, for me it helps define the surface of the Moon where otherwise it would be bleached out, I prefer the ND13 as this gives cracking views for me.  I also use OIII and UHC occasionally where the object calls for it, but apart from the Moon I prefer not to use filters but always have them on standby.

[John]

2 hours ago, The Lapwing said:

Interesting, not just me then. I rarely if ever use them. Some targets, Orion, Ring, Dumbbell look better without them in my opinion. I think the last time I used one was last summer when I had a quick look at the Veil.

That said I am considering a TV Nebustar, I was interested to see how the reduction of red effects things.

I had a TV Nebustar Type 1 and didn't think it particularly effective. To me, the Astronomik UHC has more impact as did the DGM NBP.

I believe the Nebustar Type 2 is a much more effective filter - it is made for TV by Astronomik.

So the more recent version is the one to go for I think.

 

Edited June 10, 2023 by John

[The Lapwing]

22 minutes ago, John said:

I had a TV Nebustar Type 1 and didn't think it particularly effective. To me, the Astronomik UHC has more impact as did the DGM NBP.

I believe the Nebustar Type 2 is a much more effective filter - it is made for TV by Astronomik.

So the more recent version is the one to go for I think.

 

Thank John, that is good to know. 

[The Lapwing]

I will get to find out in a few days how good the type 2 Nebustar is, I just managed to obtain one. 

[Don Pensack]

These filters have no red transmission whatsoever and render superb contrast:

TeleVue BandMate II Nebustar

Lumicon UHC Gen.3

These filters have red transmission and also excellent contrast:

Astronomik UHC Visual

DGM NPB

The debate is about the efficacy of the filters with red transmission, given that the main lines of interest are in the blue (H-ß) and blue green (O-III).

I think that depends a lot on the nebula.  Because allowing red to pass does increase light pollution passage, but also passes all the red lines in the spectrum for most nebulae (H-α, S-II, N-II).

Our eyes have nearly zero response in the red at night UNLESS the nebula is bright enough to star activating cones in the eye (e.g. M42), so it is a mystery how the red passage makes the nebula appear larger and more details visible.

But there are many nebulae where the passage of red does help quite a bit (M42/M8/M17/M20/M16/Eta Carina), and many where it doesn't.

Where red transmission doesn't really matter, the main thing that helps is a narrow bandwidth, and all the above are narrow.

[Paz]

For just observing stars (doubles and variables) I don't use filters but for solar system objects and DSOs I'll use filters depending on the target/circumstances.

[The Lapwing]

On 10/06/2023 at 00:55, Louis D said:

As others have said, I use nebula filters for some nebula observing.  I've tried various filters on Jupiter and Mars with marginal success.  Of course I use a solar filter or wedge with the sun.  I tried some vintage color line filters for solar, but didn't notice much improvement.

All of the above work with any scope.  However, for my fast achromats, I have been extensively trying out various combinations of yellow/long-pass/minus-violet and cyan/short-pass/blue-green filters on Venus and the moon to block unfocused violet-blue and red light to vastly sharpen the image at higher powers.  You end up with a pale lime-green color cast.  I've also tried various light green filters which achieve similar results over a narrower passband and lower transmission.

Thank you, an interesting perspective.
 

Tele Vue gear appears, to me at least seems to work best with in its own ecosystem. It will be interesting to see how things pan out after I have extensively tried this filter out. I will report back in a few months.